It could have been different

Looking back, the crisis in Iraq did not start with the US-led Gulf war in 1990, nor was it spurred by the US invasion of the country in 2003.

The conflict in Iraq started when its monarchy was overthrown in a bloody coup in 1958.

Until that point in time, Iraq was a strong regional power, politically and militarily, that countries in region both reckoned with and feared.

The country was united to a considerable extent and there was hardly any schism between Sunnis and Shiites.

Iraq was also an economic power, experiencing strong and sustainable growth that was the envy of neighbouring countries.

Had Iraq remained a stable monarchy, the West Bank would not have fallen to Israel in 1967.

There is enough reason to claim that the monarchy offered more security to the country, and Jordan as well due to the Hashemite rule in each.

At the time, the revolt in Iraq was triggered by the so-called Baghdad Alliance, the very same thing that would have prevented the occupation of the West Bank of Jordan had Iraq stayed a monarchy and Jordan joined the alliance.

Palestine would have taken a different turn. The same could be said about Libya, where, until the overthrow of the monarchy, in 1969, Libya was a fine example for neighbouring countries, and Egypt, which, until the king was overthrown, in 1952, was also an advanced nation in many ways and enjoyed a parliamentary democracy.

Its institutions of higher education were among the best in the Arab and Alexandria was a jewel on the Mediterranean.

This is not to claim that all was perfect during those regimes in the three Arab states, but the imperfections and shortcomings could have been corrected in good time.

The history in these three Arab states might help shed light on why Iraq and Libya are still burning states, and Egypt has still some way to go before it can enjoy more stability and progress.